Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ramawati Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 5 August, 2014
Bench: Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? AFR
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2075 of 2014
Revisionist :- Smt. Ramawati Devi And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Sajivan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in State Vs. Ramawati Devi and others whereby the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionist in Case No.1977 of 2011.
Brief facts are that the applicants moved an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused. Sukhkaran died and after him, Sripati Devi got a case registered. Many cases are also pending in different court relating to the matter. The nature of the dispute is of civil nature and there are every chances that the civil suit will be decided in favour of the applicant. The complainant has said that the photo affixed in the registry is not that of her husband and some other man has been shown to have done the registry but the person whose photo has been affixed has not been made accused by the Investigating Officer and his name has also not come during the investigation.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that Harsh Nath Yadav is not involved in the matter but he has been charge sheeted, which is not correct. The sale deed bears the photograph of Sukhkaran. There is no evidence against Ramawati Devi, Harsh Nath Yadav, Rameshwar Pandey, hence, they are liable to be discharged.
The learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application, hence, this revision.
I have heard Sri Ram Sajivan, counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction is not as wide as the appellate jurisdiction and under the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is required to exercise its powers where there is material irregularity or manifest error of law or procedure, or there is misconception or misreading of evidence or where the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or has exercised the jurisdiction wrongly and perversely or where the facts admitted or proved do not discloses any offence.
As a broad proposition, the interference of revisional court may be justified in cases (i) where the decision is grossly erroneous (ii) where there is no compliance with the provision of law (iii) where the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence on record (iv) where the material evidence of parties has not been considered (v) where the court below has misread or mis-appreciated the evidence on record (vi) where the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
In exercise of revisional jurisdiction the court may not exercise jurisdiction to reassess the evidence and reappraisal of evidence is not permissible within the revisional jurisdiction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 981 in the case of State of Kerela Vs. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri has held that "the High Court while hearing revision does not work as an appellate court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring mistake is pointed out to show that injustice has been done".
In A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 2229 in the case of Jagannath Chaudhary Vs. Ramayan Singh, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on point of law resulting in miscarriage of justice". Similarly In A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 107 in the case of Munni Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that "while exercising the revisional power the High Court has no authority to re-appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial court and appellate courts are required to do".
In another case A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 1126 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu Ingale and others it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that " generally speaking, concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two courts below are not to be interfered with by the High Court in absence of any special circumstances or unless there is any perversity."
The learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that the dispute is of civil nature, hence, it calls for interfernce under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, the counsel for the revisionists have relied upon a decision rendered in Ram Biraji Devi and another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another, 2006(11) UPCrR 112.
It think there is no bar if civil and criminal proceedings running simultaneously. The learned Magistrate, after perusal of the documents and the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie, found that there were sufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
In Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.p. and another, 2011 (72) ACC 7870, it has been laid down if there are ingredients of offence against the accused, charges should be framed.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2010 (1) ACR (SC) P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and another has held that whether the materials at the hands of the prosecution are sufficient or not are matters for trial. At the stage of charge, it cannot be claimed that there is no sufficient ground to proceeding against the accused and discharge is the only remedy. Whether the trial would end in conviction or acquittal is absolutely immaterial.
Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. and the revision is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2014
Ram Murti
